Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI: 10.5923/j.jlce.20170502.01
Abstract It is very important to integrate theoretical aspects of chemistry with practical experiences in the laboratory. To
get appropriate result in any experiment there is a need to develop practical skills among the students. They should know how
to use tools and correct procedures in a scientific investigation. This paper is aimed to identify errors observed in the
determination of a water equivalence value experiment done by undergraduate students. In this work common errors
committed by the students are identified and then taught to the students to take necessary precautions while performing the
experiment, thereby given an effective method to conduct this particular experiment in chemistry laboratory. In the present
work it was observed that variation in water equivalence value occurred while the students were recording the temperature of
the thermometer and had adopted faulty procedures. The authors have identified the random, systematic errors and
experimental errors committed by the students and provided appropriate suggestions to correct those mistakes and then
trained the students to develop required practical skills in this particular experiment. The present work is also helpful in
demonstrating how teachers can guide students effectively in practical classes.
Keywords Water equivalence, Calorimeter, Error analysis, Laboratory experiment
difference between a measurement and the true value calorimeter and the temperature of the “hot” water (t2) in the
or between two measured values. Experimental errors, beaker is accurately measured immediately before pouring
on the other hand, are inherent in the measurement into the calorimeter. The hot water is added to the
process and cannot be eliminated simply by repeating calorimeter and the temperature is recorded every 10 seconds
the experiment. for 3-5 minutes. Note the temperature (t3) which remains
In the following discussion, the errors in finding out the constant.
water equivalence of a calorimeter is considered. As per the Calculation:
report of Donald E. Simanek (1996, 2004), approximately Let water equivalence of a calorimeter = W g
6% of the experimental error occurs due to error in Heat lost by warm water= Heat gain by cold water + heat
temperature measurements. Apart from this error, our gained by the calorimeter
investigators also listed some other common errors Heat lost by the hot water is = (t2-t3) cal.
committed by students while performing this experiments Heat gained by the calorimeter and the hot water = (W+50)
and also suggested few tips to rectify such errors which will (t3 - t1) cal.
help the students to apply effectively the appropriate Heat gained = Heat lost
scientific processes so that they can make accurate and (W+m1) (t3 - t1) = m2 (t2 - t3)
precise observations to ensure valid results. W= m2 (t2 - t3) / (t3 - t1) – m1
Determination of water equivalence of a calorimeter: “W” can be considered as the number of grams of the
The water equivalent of a calorimeter is defined as the water which have the same heat capacity as the part of the
mass of water that will absorb or lose as same quantity of thermos flask used.
heat as the substance for the same change in temperature. Selection of the sample:
Calorimetry is a technique used to measure heat flow into A group of 110 students segregated into 55 batches of two
and out of matter. The basic idea of the technique is quite students each, were selected for performing this experiment
simple. The substance whose values are to be measured is as a part of their course work for IV semester B.Sc. Ed and
placed into a container called a calorimeter which isolates M.Sc. Ed course of RIE Mysore. Some of the groups were
the thermal process from the rest of the surrounding. As the heterogeneous, while some were homogeneous (male
reaction proceeds, the movement of heat from one portion of /female only groups). However due to space constraints data
the matter to another is observed by the change in of only few are presented in this paper.
temperature (Dena, 2002; Silberberg. 2007).
In the experiment a 200 mL thermos flask fitted with a two
holed cork with a thermometer and a stirrer was used as a 2. Methodology
calorimeter. A schematic diagram of a typical calorimeter is
as shown in Fig. 1. After a brief explanation of the experimental procedure by
the instructor, students were asked to carry out the
experiment on their own by following the procedure
given to them. The Investigators observed the work of the
students without their knowledge (i.e. observation of the
experimentation was not known to the sample of students.
This was adopted for validity of the investigation). Therefore,
the main methodology adopted for discovering student errors
was “observation”. But a strict observation schedule was not
incorporated. The observations made by the Investigators
was qualitative in nature. The data were collected by
interacting with the students of each group by the
Investigators.
through a literature survey and were also evident from the mistakes. Also thought to minimize these errors by doing
inferences generated by the students. Finally, percentage of repeated measurements. The percentage of random errors as
students who committed such errors were calculated. referenced according to the serial number 1 to 9 are
Random error observed during the experiments are as graphically represented in graph 1.
listed below: Systematic errors observed during the experiment are as
1. It was observed that about 10% of the students were listed below:
not using a magnifying lens while noting the 1. Using faulty calibrated thermometer, measuring
temperature in the thermometer. cylinders, pipettes etc. observed in 5% of the students.
2. About 2% of the students noted the cold water 2. Using a thermos flask which was not properly
temperature immediately after noting the hot water insulated. 0.5% of the students did this error.
temperature without waiting for the mercury level to 3. Around 1% of the students using improper rubber cork
come down. to the thermos flask to close or gaps in the holes of
3. Around 15% of the students were using different thermometer and stirrer in the rubber cork.
thermometers for measuring the temperature for cold 4. 2% of the students were careless about tight fitting of
water and hot water. the cork to the thermos flask.
4. Around 8% of the students were careless about The percentage of systematic errors as referenced
pipetting and using different pipettes or measuring according to the serial number 1 to 4 are graphically
cylinders for measuring hot and cold water. represented in graph 2.
5. About 2% of the students noted the hot water To identiy these errors Investigators kept the required
temperature 2 or more minutes prior to adding it to the items near the experimental set up which includes calibrated
cold water. and un-calibrated apparatus, corks with more gaped holes
6. 4% of the students used different thermos flasks to and faulty thermos flasks. Investigators observed the
note the temperature of hot water and cold water. students carefully and recorded the mistakes .These errors
7. 3% of the students were careless while closing the were brought to the notice of the student who were then
cork to the thermos flask. Hence perfect insulation was taught to identify the following
not maintained.
a) To identify the difference between calibrated and
8. It was seen in 12% of the groups that the measurement
un-calibrated apparatus.
of hot water temperature and cold water temperature
b) To identify the difference between certified and
were not made by the same students which might lead
uncertified measuring cylinders and pipettes.
to parallax error.
c) Taught to observe the mercury level in the
9. 5% of the students noted the hot water reading when it
thermometer to check the discontinuity in the mercury
was in the heater itself.
level.
These errors were observed by the Investigators while the d) To observe the insulation in the thermos flask.
students performed the experiments and were cross checked e) To fix the rubber cork tightly while performing the
by interacting with the students and the students were then experiment.
given proper instruction immediately to correct these
10
8 Percentage of
6 random error
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Types of random errors (As referenced above) ->
4
Percentage->
2 Systematic error
0
1 2 3 4
Types of Systematic errors (as referenced above)->
Experimental errors observed during the experiment are 1. Many students took hot water first in the thermos flask
as listed below: and noted the temperature, then added cold water to it.
Several errors were not expected by the Investigators. By doing so some amount of heat which was already
These were observed and recorded by interacting with the absorbed by the thermos flask before adding cold
students. The procedure adopted by them was cross verified water will remain unmeasured. Such student’s got
by repeating the experiment by one of the researcher. These very low values for water equivalence. Water
errors are as mentioned. equivalence values obtained by a few of the students
doing such errors are as listed below in table 1.
1. Placing the hot water in the thermos flask first (instead
Around 35% of the students engaged in this kind of
of cold water) and noting the temperature, then adding
error.
cold water to it (instead of adding hot water to cold
water) to get the resultant temperature and finding out Table 2. Showing the water equivalence values of the few students who
the water equivalence. repeated the experiment by correcting the mistake done in Table 1
2. Noting the temperature of the hot water when it was in Student Group Water equivalence values (g)
the beaker and then pipetting out the hot water and A 9.0
pouring it into the flask and calculating water B 9.6
equivalence.
C 10.2
Table 1. Showing the water equivalence values of the few students who D 11.4
took hot water first in the thermos flask
E 9.48
Student Group Water equivalence values (g) F 10.62
A 2.5 G 12.0
B 3.8
Reason for such measurement by the Students:
C 2.8
Students might have been tempted to commit this error as
D 1 they were instructed to note the temperature of hot and cold
E 4.64 water in the thermos flask itself. The procedure adopted by
F 0.29 the students made their work simple in finding out the hot
G 0.75 and cold water temperature in a single measurement. If they
added cold water first and hot water next for noting the
These two experimental errors committed by the students resultant temperature they have to remove cold and hot water
resulted huge variation in the water equivalence values. completely from the thermos flask and they have to repeat
Getting less and negative water equivalence values by the the procedure again to note the resultant temperature. In
students made us to analyse the work systematically. These order to avoid the repetition students worked smartly.
errors are explained below. Solution identified by the investigators to avoid such
Journal of Laboratory Chemical Education 2017, 5(2): 13-18 17
mistake: Investigators understood this problem by repeating experiment by correcting those mistakes done in table 3 is
the experiment themselves found out that there is no need of listed in the Table 4.
noting the hot water temperature inside the thermos flask.
Table 4. Showing the water equivalence values of the few students who
Instead noting the temperature of hot water outside the repeated the experiment by correcting the mistake of table 3
thermos flask give more accurate measurement. But
Student Group Water equivalence values (g)
immediately after noting the temperature of hot water in the
beaker it needs to be transferred to the thermos flask H 10.2
containing cold water whose temperature was already noted I 11.3
to get the resultant temperature. By explaining why the J 12.2
students got small value of water equivalence to the students, K 9.45
they were asked to repeat the experiment and the got better
water equivalence value and were listed in the table 2. Water equivalence values obtained by those students who
2. A few students noted the hot water temperature when were free from above mentioned experimental errors are
it was in the beaker and pipetted out 25 mL from it and listed in the Table 5. Over all percentage of the students who
added it to the cold water that was already kept in the are free from the above experimental errors is around 45%.
thermos flask. These students calculated negative Table 5. Showing the results of the students free from the above mentioned
values for water equivalence. Water equivalence experimental errors
values obtained by these students doing such errors are Student Group Water equivalence values (g)
as listed below in table 3. The percentage error is
L 9.4
about 20%. Graphical representation of the percentage
M 14.3
of experimental error for the above mentioned error
type is presented in graph 3. N 10.0
O 11.5
Table 3. Showing the water equivalence values of the few students who
noted the temperature of hot water before pipetting out P 12.2
30
Percentage->
20
Percentage of
10
experimental error
0
1 2
Types of Experimental errors(as mentioned above)->